Talk:Creation-evolution controversy/Selected discussions prior to October 29,2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--- Begin copy of selected discussion from Talk:Creationism prior to October 29, 2004; See Talk:Creationism and archives for complete details prior to October 29, 2004 ---

[edit] Speed of Light

Considering that Barry Setterfield's article about the decay of C is an example of Junk Science (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html ), don't you guys give it a little too much credit by not mentioning that it is a fraud?

I don't believe that your criticism is fair. Science puts forward lots of ideas that later turn out to be wrong. Setterfield honestly believed what he was putting forward; it was not a fraud. I also reject that it was junk science. It was an interesting idea that turned out to be wrong. The linked article is hardly a fair account, by the way.
On the other hand, I doubt that the current wording is accurate, in that I've not heard of the idea getting any support from helium diffusion dating.
Philip J. Rayment 02:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Micro, macro, and selection

  1. I don't understand the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Would someone please explain it to me, in simple terms a layman can understand?
    The meanings of microevolution and macroevolution seem to vary depending on who you talk to. One definition is that microevolution refers to changes within species, whereas macroevolution refers to one species changing into another. Another definition is that micro- refers to rearrangement, elimination, or corruption of genetic information (i.e. a "downhill" change) whereas macro- refers to the addition of new genetic information. Creationists argue that the former had been observed whereas the latter has not been, but they also (well, Answers in Genesis at least does this) argue that use of the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are misleading in the context of differentiating between what creationists accept and don't accept, and that the terms themselves are best avoided, as they don't really consider "microevolution" to be "real" evolution at all. Instead, they prefer to use terms such as variation. As an aside, creationists use variation to explain the numbers of species and varieties of living things that exist today having derived (in the case of land animals and birds) from the relatively fewer kinds on the ark, without having to invoke "macro-" or "real" evolution. This is consistent with their views that the universe could not create itself, and that the original creation was perfect but has deteriorated since, due to the fall.
    Philip J. Rayment 15:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    As I understand it, macroevolution is a large-scale change which brings a new species into being while microevolution is a small-scale change within an existing species. An example might be that of human races - the emergence of skin colouration in humans is the product of microevolution (a minor change within a breeding population) while the emergence of homo sapiens is the product of macroevolution (the establishment of a new population distinct from, and noth breeding with, other populations). Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong on this... -- ChrisO 15:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    I just want to add that evolutionists don't make that distinction. "Macroevolution" and "microevolution" are terms used by creationists only. The border is determined by the imagination of the creationist: if he can imagine it, it's microevolution. Hob 18:09, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
    This is wrong, and has already been discussed in Talk:Creationism/Archive 09#science doesn't distinguish macro- from microevolution?, where I wrote:
    According to Macroevolution FAQ, the terms were not invented by creationists. However, creationists (well, AiG at least) prefer not to use the terms, instead talking about the difference between loss of genetic information and gain of genetic information. See Variation, information and the created kind.
    Philip J. Rayment 00:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    I stand corrected. First time in ten years that a creationist knew something better than me. Hob 22:33, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Another thing I don't understand is the role of natural selection in the formation, creation, or appearance of new species. I thought natural selection meant "survival of the fittest", i.e., the principle that AFTER a new species is introduced into an environment, it will either survive and thrive, depending on well its characteristics fit into that environment. I don't see how its fitness for survival AFTER it appears on earth can be a "mechanism" that CAUSES it to come into being. --Uncle Ed 13:39, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    As for natural selection, you are quite right, despite what some evolutionists (who accuse me of not understanding things) say. According to evolution, the new genetic information, and therefore the new varieties of creatures, are due to mutations. Once you have these new varieties, then natural selection chooses the improved ones from the others. On the other hand, the creationist view of natural selection (which, incidentally, was described by a creationist before Darwin), is that natural selection works by removing the less-fit, defective, etc. creatures from the population. It is therefore a conserving force, not an innovative one.
    Philip J. Rayment 15:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Thanks, Philip. May I put this information in the evolution and natural selection articles?
    Uhh, yes, I guess so. But that's a rough summary. Perhaps read up on it (from a creationary/scientific POV) at [1], [2], and [3] Philip J. Rayment 15:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    And are there really two different views of natural selection? Sounds like "six of one, half a dozen of another". In database programming (my area of expertise), we speak of using a "filter". SELECT name FROM employee WHERE department='sales' is a filter, which returns a subset of employees, i.e., only those in the sales department. You can think of it filtering out those that don't match the criteria in the WHERE clause. --Uncle Ed 15:21, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Well, they are both "natural selection". They both work the same way. The difference is in purpose, I guess, not method. Is your database filter used to "filter out" the ones that you don't want, or to "filter in" the ones that you do want? With natural selection, does it remove the exceptions, or keep them? It depends on whether the exceptions are inferior to the norm (the creationary view) or potentially better (fitter) than the norm (the evolutionary view). (NB: That's a simplified view that doesn't account for fitness to specific environments. Again, see those links above.) Philip J. Rayment 15:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Natural selection causes a species to come into being and determines whether it will then survive and thrive. If an organism is well adapted to its environment then it has a better chance of survival than a less well-adapted organism. If its adaptations take it in a direction where it can no longer interbreed with its ancestral population, a new species will emerge. Speciation is the cumulative effect of natural selection - lots of small adaptations (or maybe a few big jumps) in sequence result in new species coming into existence. This has actually been observed in the wild (see for example this story on speciation in Drosophila [4].) -- ChrisO 15:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

May I in a soft voice :) suggest that we develop the documentation of these two oppositely-clustered scholarly POVs on the definition of "natural selection" by careful citation and maybe even short quotes to published articles and books? For example, has some molecular biologist used in a publication something like Ed's excellent metaphor of "selecting-in versus selecting-out" to discuss various routes to speciation? I am looking. ---Rednblu 16:19, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um, actually *blush* it was Philip's excellent metaphor, but thanks anyway! --Uncle Ed 17:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Selection as a creative force (could someone split this section up please)

To take another computer software example: Suppose my team of programmers stay up drinking Jolt Cola and eating pizza and dash off various haphazard attempts (not to say hacking) at developing the software my boss wants -- and each of their efforts are sent to the quality assurance group for testing. Let's say 95% of their, er, attempts do NOT pass our rigorous suite of software tests; i.e., the testers find "bugs" in the software.

Eventually, one of these hackers fine programmers gets it right (almost by sheer chance as it were) and his routine or module passes the QA group's tests. We accumulate these modules into a fully-formed program, and ship it (totally bug-free, by now! ;-) to our customers.

My question is, to what extent may we say that the QA group was part of the creative process? If we call 'hacking' a "random" process of monkeying with the software code (like simians typing at random to produce Shakespeare)?

My boss sometimes accuses the programmers of hacking away at random, so he won't let me drop the QA part of the process. (I bristle when he calls them monkeys; a couple of them are clean-shaven, I'll have you know!)

But would he be right if he asserted that testing was the chief mechanism by which my team created software? If so, would he still be right if he said it was the ONLY mechanism?

I'd like to think that something OTHER THAN testing is involved in the process. Some force is required to swing those software axes, so to speak, and hack up some source code. To say that testing by itself is sufficient, would be ludicrous. (The QA guys think they're hot stuff, but even they don't pretend they actually wrote anything we ever shipped.)

In plain terms, there must be some mechanism which causes the changes that we see between one species and another. The process of weeding out maladaptive changes is, I suppose, part of the formative process: the successive winnowing out helps the new species emerge. But the midwife is not the mother. And the software tester is not the programmer. So I don't see how the selection of better organisms by de-selecting worse ones ever causes the changes.

Does anyone understand what I'm getting at here, or am I just another hopelessly confused Christian apologist with delusions of intellectual grandeur? --Uncle Ed 18:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your metaphor is fatally flawed, the QA system is explicitely representative of an outside entity making the choice, and therefore pre-supposes God is involved. The point about evolution is that the choice is made by natural forces, such as the fact that the lesser species do not survive as well due to their lesser status.
A better example would be the world of Film Genres. Genres change all the time changes all the time, mutating a little on most occasions. The genres that inevitably produce rubbish films (such as "live action romantic comedies about sea creatures who speak basque and have part time jobs in the swiss government") fail to survive, wheras those which show more promise such as "comic strip superhero films" go on to spawn multiple films of a similar style within a few months. Anonymous
Interesting "better" example. And like most such examples, still favours a creationary explanation than an evolutionary one. Specifically, all those films are created by intelligent beings! The evolutionary aspect of the new information coming from chance (mutations) is absent. Philip J. Rayment 14:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In what way do you view the genres as created, are they not just ideas which are evolving? I find it odd to suggest that the creators have total control over the matter and are not influenced by the existing genres whatsoever. It would be more accurate to identify these creators as the source of mutation. Familiarity with the idea of memes might help clarify this for you. Anonymous
<<are they not just ideas which are evolving?>>
When most people speak of "evolution", they think of goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution, or perhaps cosmic evolution, but the word itself can simply mean "change". So, yes the ideas are "evolving", or changing, but the question is, what is driving the change? My point was that the choice on what goes into a film (and therefore what genre they fall into or encourage) is made by intelligent beings (the films' producers, etc.). As such it is no analogy to biological (or cosmic) evolution, which denies intelligent input. Of course the film-makers are influenced by the existing genres and will often choose to follow a genre that is currently proving popular, but that is a choice, and they retain control of the content of their films.
Philip J. Rayment 02:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How much could the choice, of what goes in, be considered to be actually entirely 100% down to the "intelligent beings", and how much does to the influence of peer pressure and marketing? I maintain that the majority of what is to be the genre is not decided by the "intelligent being", but rather by the prevailing fashion. Anonymous
Even though people have a wide variety of what they think looks nice, why is it that the majority of people dress in similar styles of clothing? Is this their choice? or the shops? --217.150.114.18 14:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Could we work out your analogy for a pair of heuristic programs? --let's not worry at the moment about who programmed the first pair of heuristic programs? --heuristic programs that "spawn" second-generation programs also heuristic? Surrounding the colony of "spawning" heuristic programs, there is an ecological program driven by wind, air, sun, and rain which daily throws new challenges at the heuristic programs inside it? Is it possible that the heuristic programs could "migrate" in their programming to become totally different species of programs with hitherto unforeseen modules of arms, legs, brains, . . . .?
In any case, can we find some quotable molecular biologist who expresses a model like we are examining? ---Rednblu 18:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The theory of evolution does not claim that natural selection is the only force necessary for making new features. It says that mutation and selection are both necessary. It's like walking: you have to move your left foot (mutation), then your right foot (selection), then the left one again. Creationists often say things like "how can you move forward by only moving your left foot?! And it's also impossible to move forward by only moving your right foot! Therefore macrowalking is impossible! You can only have little changes, in the dimension of your leg length, and one shouldn't call those 'walking'." Evolutionists say, "nobody said that one leg is enough. We always say you have to use both." Hob 18:19, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
I've never heard any creationist say anything like "how can you move forward by only moving your left foot?" That sounds like a straw man to me. Philip J. Rayment 00:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's a simile. Of course what they really say is, "how can a new species evolve by only random mutations!? And it's also impossible to evolve a new species by only selecting unfit individuals! Therefore macroevolution is impossible! You can only have little changes, in the borders of the kind, and one shouldn't call those 'evolution'." Translated into the simile, where mutation is the left foot and selection is the right foot, this sounds as stupid as it is. Hob 22:24, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
I realised it was a simile. That's why I put the words "anything like" in the sentence. Your rewording to be more, um, 'literal', doesn't change my response. I have not heard creationists say anything like that. All creationists I know are well aware that evolution invokes natural selection as well, and that natural selection is supposed to select the fitter individuals. That is, that evolution walks on two feet. I suspect that (a) you are not explaining yourself adequately, (b) you have misunderstood what creationists are saying, or (c) the creationists you have talked to are amateurs who don't really know what they are talking about (which would be consistent with your comment that I am the first in ten years that has known something better than you!). Do you have a link to an actual quote by a creationist? Philip J. Rayment 22:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  1. Anon, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., p. 102f.
  2. Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Master Books, Arkansas, p. 51-55.
Both say that mutations don't produce new features and that things don't get built by accident. Both ignore selection and pretend that the theory of evolution says mutation alone does it. This is very common (the 747-from-a-junkyard argument), and I think it's strange you never encountered it.
  1. [5] says about selection: "It cannot be the force behind evolution because it is not creative and doesn't add complexity to living things."
  2. Also, a few lines above this, Ed Poor argues exactly along those lines.
This is also pretty common.
Thanks for the references, it allows me to see what you are talking about.
It's not that I haven't encountered the arguments. It's my second option above ("you have misunderstood what creationists are saying"). What the creationists say and what you say they say are not the same thing.
To stick with your walking analogy for a moment, you mentioned that evolution requires that the left foot move first, and only then can the right foot move. Creationists are not saying "how can you move forward by only moving your left foot?", but "how can you move forward when you have to move your left foot first and your left leg is paralysed?" It doesn't matter how useful the right foot is if it never gets a chance to have a go. The argument is that the mutations that are needed to supply the new genetic information to be selected by natural selection don't actually supply new genetic information.
Philip J. Rayment 00:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This doesn't hold water. If they think the left leg is paralyzed, they should talk about the left leg, not the right one. Talking about the right leg is a red herring. Also, this is pretty much what I'm saying: first they look at mutation, claim that it doesn't "supply new information", probably meaning "very little new information, and only very rarely". Thus, mutation is out of the picture, they look at selection, and selection can't do anything alone. Actually, the left leg is not paralyzed, but it can only do one little step. Adding up little steps is too hard a task if the first thing you do is saying, "oh, that's approximately zero".
<<If they think the left leg is paralyzed, they should talk about the left leg, not the right one.>>
Why can't they talk about both?
<<first they look at mutation, claim that it doesn't "supply new information", probably meaning "very little new information, and only very rarely".>>
No, they mean that doesn't supply new information, just as they said.
OK, then they are talking obvious nonsense. Every time a cosmic ray changes one nucleotide into another, two bits of information are generated. Hob 09:46, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
No, that is nonsense. That is like saying that every time a typist mistypes something, he is adding to the information content of his document. Information (in this context at least) requires meaning. If it doesn't mean something, it is not information but noise ("data without meaning"). Philip J. Rayment 14:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That is like saying that every time a typist mistypes something,... - indeed, this is an interesting analogy. The typist is not (necessarily) adding information to the document, but to the gene pool of the language. If the variant spelling is well accepted, the language as a whole moves to the new spelling. How do you think American English lost the u in color, government (lost an e there, to, I think), and so on? --Stephan Schulz 13:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ignoring the fact that I believe that the loss of u in color was introduced deliberately by Webster, how is changing from "colour" to "color" an increase in information? The meaning is exactly the same. This is not an increase in information (keeping in mind that I was talking about information that had meaning.) Philip J. Rayment 23:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For the ribosomes, the organelles that translate the RNA into proteins, it is information, since it has meaning, and it is translated into amino acids just the same way as before. The enzyme the ribosome constructs may do its job better than before, or worse. You seem to be claiming that there are no beneficial mutations.
Creationists do claim that there are no information-adding mutations (occasionally an information-losing mutation may be beneficial, so they don't claim no beneficial mutations. See [6] and [7]). Philip J. Rayment 16:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But you are side-tracking. Your claim was that they don't talk about both feet. Now you are admitting that they do talk about both and saying that they should only talk about the left!!! I wonder how many working legs are needed for a backflip?? :-)
Philip J. Rayment 15:51, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You distort what I said. When judging the mechanism of evolution, one should look at the combination of mutation and selection, because that is the proposed mechanism. Saying that "selection alone can't do it" is a Straw Man, and saying that "mutation alone can't do it" is a Straw Man. Both make it sound as if evolutionary biologists earnestly proposed that one of the two effects worked alone, so both are not serious scientific arguments, but pseudoscience-typical attempts at distorting opponents' viewpoint. That was my first point.
When judging whether mutation can add new information, "selection alone can't do it" is still a Straw Man. In that case, one should look at what mutation can do. It seems you don't even try to understand what I say, but given my experience with creationists, I expected as much. Hob 09:46, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
I did wonder if I was misunderstanding your seemingly-contradictory statements, but that was the best that I could make of them.
But to get to the main point, I have two problems with your argument. First, the two feet analogy is correct in that it is one foot and then the other. They are walking, not jumping. It is not both feet working simultaneously, but one after the other. Therefore the two can be looked at in isolation to see if either work. If either one doesn't work, the whole process fails.
Yes. How is that a problem for my argument?
You appeared to be claiming that talking about them in isolation is misrepresenting the evolutionary argument. Philip J. Rayment 16:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Second, to use Scientific Creationism that you referred to, Morris starts off the section (on page 51) talking about how selection supposedly selects from new information, but points out that the "new information" of Darwin was actually variation with the available genetic information, and afterwards goes on to talk about mutations as an alternative source of genetic information. But the point is that right at the start of the section, he is talking about the combination. He does not indicate that evolutionists believe it to be one or the other, rather than both.
Philip J. Rayment 14:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
He doesn't need to indicate it. As soon as he says that selection is useless without mutation, the Straw Man is erected. BTW, initially I was referring to Ed Poor's argument above, not Morris'. Also, I don't want to talk about strawmen. Strawmen are for distracting attention from weaknesses, and talking about strawmen is tantamount to falling for them. The heart of the matter is the claim that "mutations don't add information". On top of that, this is not the right place. This is for discussion how the Creationism page should look. I just wanted to point out that Ed Poor's argument was weak. I guess I'll just stop this. Hob 15:56, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
But selection is useless without something to select, which is supposedly supplied by mutations. However, agreed that this is not the place. Not agreed though that Ed Poor's argument was weak. Philip J. Rayment 16:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

<<Creationists do claim that there are no information-adding mutations (occasionally an information-losing mutation may be beneficial, so they don't claim no beneficial mutations. See [8] and [9]).>>

In my opinion, the clearest example of a mutation providing "information-adding" would be the HIV virus--which apparently sometime around 1950 mutated in a way that it could suddenly mutate faster in a safe place along its genome and thereby outwit the enemy--the enemy being the human immune system. As I understand it, the effective HIV virus of today mutates so fast that in each new virus strand there are an average of two mutations compared to its "parent." The advantage that the HIV virus gets from such a fast mutation is that the human immune system keeps building effective immune responses to the "parents" but the "kids" are mutated so totally different that the immune responses made to deactivate the parents do not work against the kids.

This makes me question the value of the term "information-adding" as a test of anything real--because all that counts here, it seems to me, is some temporary advantage to improve the fraction of "kids" that have "kids" that have "kids" . . . . You might say that the HIV virus "added information" by mutating so that it could mutate faster. Certainly from an anthropomorphic view, any of my friends would consider it a brilliant "information-adding" war strategy to come up with the understanding that the "enemy" always builds immune defenses against the "parents" and assumes that the "kids" will not have significant mutation. But the HIV virus made that "information-adding" mutation all on its own--and with no brain--as far as I can tell. :)

Is there a creationist scholar who discusses the HIV mutations from the standpoint of "information-adding"? I am curious. And I think Wikipedia readers would like to see how that discussion and argument might progress--from the various points-of-view. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. See Has AIDS evolved? and HIV resistance to drugs. Philip J. Rayment 14:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Good! I will be tied up for a week, but I will be back. I read your links above. I would be interested in developing a good section from all of the material we have on this. But I wonder if discussions like that should be on the Creationism page rather than a page like Creationism versus Evolution--or some such name. What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for the belated response (but you've been away anyway!). I would like to see an article listing and summarising the (young-earth) creationist arguments, but I can't decide what it should go under. Creationism doesn't seem appropriate, as I think that should be more about creationism's history and rationale, rather than a long list of arguments. Creation belief is more about a wide spectrum of beliefs (not just 'creationist'). Young Earth creationism is not appropriate, because although YEC's are a subset of all creationists, their arguments are more of a superset of creationists arguments. For example, old-earth creationists, etc. will use arguments to (try and) show that evolution is wrong, whereas YECs will use arguments to show that evolution is wrong and arguments to show that the universe is 'young'. Philip J. Rayment 15:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Can we cut the discussion below into another, new, section instead? as this section is rather long, and it doesn't seem terribly much to do with the section title.--217.150.114.18 15:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Extremely few would consider the opinions presented at answersingenesis.org as representing definitive scientific opinion. Certainly few credible scientists. They don't present or conduct actual science at answersingenesis.org; they start with a conclusion and select only evidence that supports that conclusion while ignoring evidence that contradicts it. They make no bones about being open with their bias at least: "This illustration shows people the importance for Christians to build all their thinking—in every area—on the Bible."[10].--FeloniousMonk 21:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<Extremely few would consider the opinions presented at answersingenesis.org as representing definitive scientific opinion.>>
Nobody said that the views presented were "definitive" in the sense that everyone agrees with them. Apart from that, you exaggerate how few would think that the views are scientifically valid, but essentially evolutionists wouldn't agree and creationists would. Your statement is true only to the extent that evolutionists (or evolutionary scientists) outnumber creationists (or creationary scientists).
I doubt that you can back up your claim that "They don't present or conduct actual science at answersingenesis.org", but if you attempt to, you should also define it more precisely. Much of the science that they present is actually from evolutionary scientists, so what does your comment say about that science?
They do consider the Bible preeminent, but then I could quote you evolutionary scientists that consider rejection of the Divine or acceptance of materialism as preeminent. Both sides come to the debate with their a priori assumptions; the difference with AiG is that they recognise and acknowledge them.
Philip J. Rayment 01:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Only on established, credible peer-reviewed scientific journals represent definitive scientific opinion. The real distinguishing difference between the actual scientific community and the AiG is that the former starts with a hypothesis and considers all evidence in testing its validity while the latter, as do many creationists, start with a conclusion and only accept evidence that supports it. An extended read of the "scientific articles" presented at answersingenesis.org confirms this. By beginning with a conclusion, god created the world, AiG fails to practice sound method. Mentioning in passing the biblical basis for their a priori assumptions does not make their method anymore sound. You'd have to build a far stronger case than this to show that propositional knowledge relied upon by science is just a priori assumptions; that's a specious claim at best. A good encyclopedic article will only present sound reasoning from credible references.--FeloniousMonk 19:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<Only on established, credible peer-reviewed scientific journals represent definitive scientific opinion.>>
AiG publish a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Of course, it being creationist, you would dismiss it as not credible.
In science, peer-reviewed means revieed by recognized members of the scientific community, not a selected set of AiG croonies.--Stephan Schulz 09:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Again, trying to besmirch someone's reputation is not what this page is for. But to respond, AiG scientists and other creationary scientists they call on for peer review are recognised members of the scientific community. Philip J. Rayment 14:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Recognised by whom? It doesn't count if they are only recognised as such by themselves, because that would only be being recognised by the "AiG" community and not the significantly larger scientific community nor of a majority of it. --217.150.114.18 15:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You tell me. Or at least ask Stephan Schulz, who used the term. Surely "recognised" is not a synonymn for "evolutionist"? Surely it means something like, say, having published scientific papers? If so, then that also includes many creationists, including, I'm sure, those that peer-review AiG articles. Philip J. Rayment 03:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, in order to qualify as a reviewer you should be an expert in the field. You should have demonstrated your expertise to the editor, e.g. by publishing good papers yourself. But in particular, you should be an outsider - e.g. not a frequent collaborator, not from the same institution, not a close personal friend (or at the least, you should warn the editor, and the editor should take this into account when evaluating the reviews). You should also be a sceptic - that is, the paper has to convince you of its point. As far as I can tell, nothing like this happens at AiG. In fact, everyone working there has to accept the outrageous (from a scientific point of view) statement of faith. That alone disqualifies all these peers as scientific reviewers. No further discussion is necessary (and I'll try to not fall for it again). --Stephan Schulz 13:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing to indicate that AiG's reviewers are not experts in their field and have not demonstrated that expertise. Neither has anybody raised any evidence that they are frequent collaborators, from the same institution, or close personal friends. What do you mean by a sceptic? A sceptic of creation, or a sceptic of the particular idea proposed in the article? If the latter, again nobody has raised any evidence that this is not the case. If you mean that they have to be a sceptic of creation, then surely to be consistent all papers by evolutionists need to be reviewed by creationists! In short, you have provided nothing of substance to show that there is anything wrong with the AiG review process. In fact you even say "As far as I can tell, nothing like this (proper review) happens". So you don't know that the review process is flawed, you are just assuming it! Philip J. Rayment 23:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<The real distinguishing difference between the actual scientific community and the AiG...>>
AiG employs and makes use of scientists, that is, members of the actual scientific community. Evolutionists' constant attempts to draw an artificial line between scientists and creationists does their credibility no favours.
<<...is that the former starts with a hypothesis and considers all evidence in testing its validity ...>>
No, atheists and the like, who make up a significant proportion of the scientific community, cannot consider any evidence that God could be involved (and remain atheists).
<<By beginning with a conclusion, god created the world, AiG fails to practice sound method.>>
"God created the world" is not a 'conclusion', but a starting assumption. Many scientists begin with the assumption that God did not create the world, or at the very least, that the world can be explained without invoking God.
Science assumes that there are no supernatural effects (otherwise the whole point of science, trying to understand the universe, is moot). Science has no problem with a god that is part of nature - it just has not found any convincing evidence for it. By contrast, so called scientists of AiG have to sign a statement of faith that declare the books of Genesis to be literal truth. You might call that an assumption, but according to the statement of faith, it is an assumption that cannot be questioned or rejected, and hence is inherently unscientific.--Stephan Schulz 09:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In any case, the articles were offered in response to a question. If the articles themselves provide misinformation insofar as the question is concerned (which is unlikely, considering the questioner was asking what creationists have to say), you can try and correct that specific misinformation. Beyond that (such as trying to besmirch the reputation of the organisation), this forum is not the place for that, and your comments were therefore out of line.
Philip J. Rayment 03:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Out of line? Not at all. In fact Stephan Schulz's comments were more than just appropriate, they were necessary. As long as you present any organization here as a reference for supporting points to be made in the article, those organizations are open to scrutiny. Answersingenesis.org has no scientific standing to "besmirch". What is actually out of line is filling Talk pages with endless debates over partisan POV.--FeloniousMonk 17:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually, FeloniousMonk, Stephan inserted his comments inside my response to you. The "out of line" comment was directed at you. Rednblu asked what creationists say about about a particular topic. In response, I linked a couple of articles by creationists. You then jumped in and questioned the credentials of the creationists. Why? How on earth are creationists unqualified to speak on what creationists say? That is why I was saying that you were out of line in turning this part of this talk page into an attack on creationists. I stand by that. Philip J. Rayment 00:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Whether your comment was to me or Stephen and why it was presented is irrelevant; my point still stands either way: Any reference source presented for support of POV points are open to scrutiny. Answersingenesis.org pointedly makes the assertion that it is engaged in Science, when by definition, it is actually engaged in Junk Science, a point clearly lost on or overlooked by those who share its POV agenda. Pointing out errors of fact here is not an attack on creationists.--FeloniousMonk 15:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But the reference source was not presented for support of POV points. The reference source was documentation on what creationists think. You have not explained how the linked articles are in any way unqualified to talk about what creationists think on those topics.
You keep claiming things like "Creationism is by definition junk science", but keep failing to explain how or why this is so. I maintain that creation is no more junk science than evolution. I also note the following from the Junk Science article you linked to: "Junk science is a term used to derogate...". That suggests that by using the term you are being derogatory, rather than objective. "... there is often no political agreement as to which side of a debate constitutes 'junk', and which 'real' science, though the scientific community may have an overwhelming majority opinion." But obviously you know what is and what isn't.
You didn't point out errors of fact; you besmirched the veracity of the authors. It's the same thing that you have done to me. Instead of telling me where I was factually wrong, you just said that I didn't know what I was talking about.
Philip J. Rayment 16:02, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

The level of indentation is getting absurd, so I'm skipping it here. I've stated my position on the reason and its validity for pointing out issue with the credibility of answersingenesis.org, I'll no longer debate it here. I haven't said (recently at least) that Creationism is Junk Science, I said that answersingenesis.org engages in Junk Science, and that is because they engage in agenda-driven research that ignores standard methodologies and practices in an attempt to secure a given result from an experiment. That much is obvious by their own admissions about their assumptions.--FeloniousMonk 16:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • You have not explained how AiG are unqualified to talk about what creationists think.
  • AiG are creationists, and one of the leading examples of creationists, so any distinction between them and creationism in this context seems to be splitting hairs. Regardless, my comments apply in either case.
  • Atheistic evolutionists 'engage in agenda-driven research' as much as creationists, but I don't see you questioning the veracity of people like Prof. Richard Dawkins.
  • You have not documented any "standard methodologies and practices" that AiG have ignored. That is nothing more than an unsubstantiated slur.
Philip J. Rayment 16:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I refuse to be goaded or drawn into a long discussion about answersingenesis.org, but I will respond to these last questions and points of yours since you seem to be not getting it.
  • I have never said AiG is unqualifed to present or comment on creationist views, I've only said that AiG does not represent mainstream scientific opinion because it does not engage in actual science.
  • That atheist evolutionists 'engage in agenda-driven research' as much as creationists is just your opinion. It has not been established by any objective, neutral research that I'm aware of. If you have evidence to support your opinion, your welcome to present on the Talk pages for the evolution article, its hardly relevant here.
  • You have been shown over and over here that AiG's own statements placing the bible as the ultimate difinitive source of truth violates the most basic precepts of scientific method.[11] [12] Your continual refusal to see or accept that is proof to me that you have a flawed understanding of what constitutes valid scientific method.
I'm done discussing answersingenesis.org--FeloniousMonk 17:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

<<I refuse to be goaded or drawn into a long discussion about answersingenesis.org>>
I wasn't trying to do that. You started the discussion about AiG, and I pointed out that it was out of line.
<<I have never said AiG is unqualifed to present or comment on creationist views, I've only said that AiG does not represent mainstream scientific opinion...>>
No, but you made that comment in response to me referencing them on creationist views. You have yet to explain the relevance of that.
<<placing the bible as the ultimate difinitive source of truth violates the most basic precepts of scientific method>>
So you keep saying, but you don't explain how this is the case, given that (a) the scientific method is a method, whereas AiG's statement is a statement of belief, and having a belief in a creator does not stop one using the scientific method in conducting research, as exemplified by the fact that (b) many founders of modern science had that very belief.
Philip J. Rayment 15:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

<<Science assumes that there are no supernatural effects >>
Not true. Science is an activity; it doesn't 'assume' anything. It is the scientists (many of them) that make the assumption. And that is my point--those scientists assume that as their starting point. Just like creationary scientists assume that there is a creator.
<<(otherwise the whole point of science, trying to understand the universe, is moot)>>
Try telling that to the founders of modern science, most of whom had the same assumption about a creator. It is not incompatible with doing science to assume that there is a creator.
Philip J. Rayment 14:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, first thanks for lifting this up 10 levels of indention. I don't know if it makes it easier to read, but it does make it easier to answer. Now to the meat. The basic aim of science is to understand the universe. That implies that it is understandable. A supernatural creator is, by definition, not. Note again that science has no problem with a non-supernatural creator. However, according to Occam's Razor, you don't start with assuming it, you only add it to your theory if necessary. Today, there is no evidence that a theory with a creator is somehow simpler, better, or more correct than one without. Goddidit is simple only for simple minds. It adds no descriptive power to a naturalistic explanation, but opens a whole lot of additional questions.--Stephan Schulz 16:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<The basic aim of science is to understand the universe. That implies that it is understandable.>>
It would be better to say that "that assumes that it is understandable". That is another of the assumptions that I was talking about. In this case, it is an assumption that both creationists and non-creationists make, but the assumption is actually based on the idea that there is order in the universe, and that that order derives from an orderly creator. That is why modern science arose in Christian Europe. Why would a universe created by chance have order? Therefore, why would a universe created by chance be understandable? Many scientists have since ditched the idea of a creator, but haven't ditched the assumption of an understandable universe. But the assumption is consistent with a created universe, not a chance universe.
Well, for one there is the anthropcentric explanation. Humans cannot live in a chaotic universe. Hence of course we see order. No creator required. And modern science arose in "Christian" Europe arguably a) by selective perception (Algebra? Algorithm? Arabic" numbers? and b) in spite of Christianities best attempts. (Note the "arguably" - I'm not claiming that no good early science was done by Christians or even from a Christian motiviation, but I am claiming that the Christian substratum is not critcial for the development of science).--Stephan Schulz 09:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I assume that you are referring to the Anthropic principle. But it doesn't explain how it could have happened, merely that we wouldn't be discussing it unless it had happened.
A number of historians have said that modern science arose in Christian Europe because it was Christian, because the view was that the created world was therefore able to be rationally studied.
Philip J. Rayment 15:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There's some significant irony in seeing Christians earnestly type that science would not exist without Christianity on computers made by Bhuddists in China.--FeloniousMonk 15:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<A supernatural creator is, by definition, not [understandable].>>
This is beside the point (and wrong, but that's another issue). I'm not talking about scientifically studying the creator, but rather doing science based on--or allowing for--the assumption that there is a creator, as most of the early scientists did (and some current ones still do).
Well, there is a massive difference bewteen doing sciene based on the assumption that there is a creator and allowing for [it]. The first is not science at all, the second is done successfully by any number of scienctists day in and day out. --Stephan Schulz 09:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The first is science as much as assuming no creator. By "allowing for", I meant that in trying to determine the cause of any individual phenomenon, creationists can consider both natural and supernatural causes, but materialists can only consider natural explanations. Philip J. Rayment 15:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<Today, there is no evidence that a theory with a creator is somehow simpler, better, or more correct than one without.>>
I would beg to differ. "The universe was created by a Being with the power to create it" seems to me to be better, logically, than "The universe created itself", or "First there was nothing, then there was something". Another example would be "The information in DNA was created by an intelligent being" is simpler than trying to explain how information came without there being an intelligence, when all our observations are that information (in the sense of conveying meaning) only comes from an intelligence.
"The universe was created by a Being with the power to create it" gets you into an infinite regression. Who created that Being? The same thing happends if you assume the intelligent being that creates the "information in DNA". Where did it come from? What is it source of "information"?--Stephan Schulz 09:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's not an infinite regression if that Being is uncreated and therefore had no beginning. This has always been the understanding of Christendom. Philip J. Rayment 15:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<Goddidit is simple only for simple minds.>>
That is a very simplistic representation of it, but to the extent that it is applicable, what does that say about the great minds of the past and present that believe that God did do it? You are basically trying to insult the intelligence of everyone that doesn't agree with your point of view, and many indisputably very intelligent people are included in that insult.
Philip J. Rayment 00:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That they were simple in that respect. Are you trying an argument at (undefined) authority? "We don't know what causes thunder and lightning. It's got to be Thor's Hammer!". That is simplicistic. It does not change if you say "We don't know how the universe came into being. It's got be be God". --Stephan Schulz 09:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your examples are simplistic, but they don't represent creationists. Creationists attribute to God (a) those things that He told us he did, and (b) those things for which a designer is the most logical explanation. You said that science can accept a natural creator, not a supernatural one, but the point is that there are ways of telling if something is designed, and if there is no available natural designer, it is not the simplistic examples you give to postulate that the designer may be supernatural. Creationists don't claim to be able to scientifically prove supernatural design, though. Rather, they argue that neither evolution (of the universe, etc.) nor creation is scientifically proveable, but the evidence that we have is more consistent with creation than evolution. That is a reasoned analysis, not just attributing to God what we don't understand. On the other hand, materialists have faith that materialism is the answer (we don't know how life began, but we know that it must have been naturalistic), because they make this a priori assumption that the supernatural is not to be considered, and then claim that they are being rational! Philip J. Rayment 15:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Quoting you here, you say "Creationists attribute to God (a) those things that He told us he did, and (b) those things for which a designer is the most logical explanation." You've made a number of errors of logic here. The first part of your sentence should read: 'Creationists attribute to God (a) those things that He allegedly told us he did...' There is no evidence that the Bible, and Genesis in particular is the actual word of God, nor is there a rational reason to believe that it is. As far as the second part of your sentence: (b) those things for which a designer is the most logical explanation, that is a perfect example of the argumentum ad ignorantium or argument by lack of imagination. Firstly, it's not the most logical explanation at all. Logic to be valid must be rational, and assuming an unseen, supernatural creator is irrational on its face. Secondly, just because you and other creationists cannot imagine how a universe came into being naturally, does not mean that it did not and hence "God did it." Your logic and knowledge on this topic are extremely flawed, people shouldn't have to spend every day here correcting you on things you should already understand if you were to edit the article from a position of knowledge.--FeloniousMonk 16:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<The first part of your sentence should read: 'Creationists attribute to God (a) those things that He allegedly told us he did...' >>
If that is so, then you should have said, "There is allegedly no evidence that the Bible...is the actual word of God".
<<There is no evidence that the Bible, and Genesis in particular is the actual word of God, nor is there a rational reason to believe that it is.>>
Do you know everything? Then how can you be certain that there is no evidence nor reason? Perhaps there is evidence that you are not aware of. There is no scientific proof (not that you could expect scientific proof in a case like this), but there certainly is some evidence, and some reason.
<<Logic to be valid must be rational, and assuming an unseen, supernatural creator is irrational on its face.>>
Why? Why is it rational to exclude a supernatural creator from consideration?
<<Secondly, just because you and other creationists cannot imagine how a universe did not come into being naturally, does not mean that it did not and hence "God did it." >>
No, but that is not what I said. I meant (and near enough to said) was that "God did it" (as you simplistically put it) is the more reasonable explanation of the explanations on offer.
Philip J. Rayment 16:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


The burden of proof is always on those making a claim. If you have proof that the bible is indeed the actual word of God, then by all means present it, but remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Lacking such evidence there is no reason to assume that it is. Anyone who has, only does so on Faith.
Considering that I was responding to your claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word, that puts the onus on you to prove your claim! How is the Bible being God's Word an "extraordinary" claim, unless one is first of all starting with the assumption that it isn't? Philip J. Rayment 15:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Claiming that creationism is a "more reasonable explanation" than naturalistic ones only demonstrates that you do not understand the argumentum ad ignorantium, philosophical naturalism, occam's razor, and the scientific method.--FeloniousMonk 18:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And yet again you attempt to put me down instead of actually explain something. And yet again you are ignoring all the past and present intelligent people that consider(ed) creation more reasonable. Philip J. Rayment 15:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

An easy analogy that I like to use to is this. If you have green and red lizards that live on green leaves. Natural selection says that because the green lizards are camoflauged they will have a better chance at survival. Most down to earth creationsts will agree with this type of microevolution. We started with lizards and ended with lizards, there was a small change but no new species. What we don't believe is that the lizards turned into some completely different kind of creature. Evolutionists will tell you that mutations in the DNA code over time will eventually create changes and that enough of these changes over time will create a completely different species. The observable evidence is that the mutations exist but come from a loss of data in the DNA code. If you want to turn a beatle into a camel you have to add much information to the DNA code and to this day not one evolutionist has come up with a mechanism that adds to the DNA.

Armbar

Retroviruses such as HIV work explicitely by inserting code into DNA. Thus there is an easy natural mechanism (though it is not necessarily the only one) for the addition of large quantities of material. Anonymous
Geneticists are often mentioned on news items as having inserted the gene for such and such into a different creature (i.e. Genetic Engineering). It is therefore a possible thing to happen that the number and nature of genes increase.--217.150.114.18 15:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with both of those statements, which is one reason that I said that Armbar's explanation is sloppy. The problem is not the mechanism of insertion, but the source of brand-new genetic information. Mechanisms that copy existing genetic information into DNA do not explain the source of brand-new genetic information. Philip J. Rayment 03:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Surely there can be genetic mutations which have all of the following properties
(a) they cause a gene to change or be destroyed/lost
(b) they exist in some retro-viral entity
(c) the retro-viral entity inserts it into a greater entity
(d) the net result is the increase in genetic information in the greater entity
In addition, surely all existing genetic information is either A, G, T, or C. Changes simply to the order of these, let alone inserting large additional chunks in randomly, produces entirely new sequences. The consequence is a new protein and thus a new gene. In most cases it will probably do nothing useful, but in a few could be the source for evolution.
Copying existing genetic information is copying the A-G-C-T code. If you copy any sequence of letters from any part of any word and insert it into some other word, you will get a new word. I don't see how there could not be brand-new genetic information by this mechanism.
217.150.114.18 14:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The difference between humans and cabbage is only about 20% of the DNA at most, so turning a beatle into a camel really doesn't require as sizable an amount of DNA as one would first think. Anonymous
I know what you are getting at, Armbar, and I agree with what you are getting at, but for the sake of any evolutionists reading this, I must say that that is a very sloppy explanation. Sorry. Philip J. Rayment 03:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--- End copy of selected discussion from Talk:Creationism; See Talk:Creationism and archives for complete details prior to October 29, 2004 ---